Re: OT: Why stonehenge Sucks
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:12:38 -0800, Deryk Barker
<dbarker@turing.cs.camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
Thus spake Jim Higson (jh@333.org):
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:54:13 -0800, Nano Nano <40101.nospam@comcast.net>
wrote:
Stonehenge sucks!
No, the presentation, the limitation of access, suck. Stonehenge
itself is a truly strange monument - try sleeping overnight in the
back of your car within sight of it, as I once did.
I have. Well, not in a car, but I don't think internal combusion was the
missing
ingredent. I suppose I'm just not superstitious/spirtual/whatever. Other
than
the feat of building it I found it about as 'strange' as any other pile of
stones.
I'd rather visit the nearby Salisbury cathedral anyday. Now that's
spectacular.
Seriously, don't visit it. You get to walk around a rope 10 meters or so
from the stones, which have mostly fallen doen anyway.
Well the stones which have fallen "doen" did so a long time ago. AFAIK
there have been no stones falling since Stonehenge became a tourist
attraction.
Ok, it doesn't really matter to me when they fell down, it's still prettty
underwhelming. I don't mean to say that I'm not interested in my history,
but when it's this plain I'm happy to read about it in books.
Maybe I just don't get it.
My major beef is the way that they allow the "Druids" (virutually
nothing is known about the real Druids aside from a paragraph in
Caesar) to prance about there on midsummer's morning.
Firstly the real Druids did *not* build Stonehenge and secondly the
rpesent-day druids were founded in the 18th (?) century by John Aubrey
(he of Brief Lives fame) who surveyed Stonehenge and after whom the
Aubrey holes are named.
These present day idiots in their KKK-style outfits have no more right
to special treatment at Stonehenge than does Bugs Bunny. Actually
rather less.
Ok, but I don't think they have any less right than you or I.
--
Jim Higson
Reply to: